www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: JSR 291 - public review
Date Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:16:19 GMT
On Jan 22, 2007, at 5:35 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>   2) The Specification, RI, and TCK licenses are provided to the EC
>>      prior to the vote;
>
> We're not at that stage.  This is just the public draft, but I  
> expect that will happen at the end of the process.
>
>>
>>   3) The Specification and TCK licenses allow an open source
>>      implementation;
>>
>>   4) The above licenses are provided at no cost to nonprofit
>>      organizations like the ASF; and
>
> Both of these are required by the JCP, but I don't see how this is  
> going to work out yet.  The license of the included OSGi spec is  
> for feedback and distribution only.  I assume that you aren't being  
> licensed to implement the spec, even for internal evaluation.   
> That's unusual for even a JCP spec.  Granted, this is consistent  
> with the license you agree to to review this spec which doesn't  
> mention implementation either.

Actually, I think this is because of Sun legal's boilerplate license
for the public review.  The PMO required Day to do the same for JSR 170
during the JCR review period, and then replaced the review license with
the real license for the final review.  In other words, I think this
is a non-issue for now.

I think we should vote Yes with a comment to the effect that all of
this must be cleared up in the final submission.  There should be a
statement by the Spec Lead that indicates they have been licensed
all of the intellectual property necessary from the OSGi Alliance
members and that said IP is included in the Specification License.

If that statement is given, then it is worthwhile having the JSR
even if it merely rubberstamps OSGi work.  Think of it as a shared
legal agreement, rather than a new technology.

....Roy

Mime
View raw message